Thread: Response to the Law and Order Select committee

Originally Posted by P38

@kotuku

@Rushy has beaten you to it mate, I believe he has a whole collection of these things now.

Attachment 70604

Cheers ( I think)
Pete

Ahhhh! A Rushy mini me.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

I don't see making improvements in security sacrificing ones principles, if anything opposing change just because we don't want to co-operated when some change may be beneficial, would be sacrificing ones principles.

I agree with what has been mentioned for raising the standards for security but there should always be the previous option as before and it shouldn't be taken away. Why not have both? A safe in the garage and a firearm locked up in a wardrobe/wall bracket may be a viable option for some people especially for their security.

It would also be a shame if the security standards become so high that it then becomes a financial burden to FAL owners.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

I believe some areas we can be happy to allow change is:
Security, an improvement on minimum standards are needed
Penalties, increased penalties for people who do break the law
Recording of serial numbers, I believe it should be a requirement that gun owners personally record serial numbers and information on firearms, so if their guns are stolen the police are able to tell for certain if the guns are found in subsequent investigations.

Minimum security requirements don't require a law change, just common sense by gun owners and the vetting officers who check the security of gun owners.
Penalties for violent crime with a firearm are a joke as they stand, we all know and agree to that.
Recording of serial numbers. I agree, everyone SHOULD keep a personal record of their serial numbers, but instead of making more legislation (which is the last thing any country needs), how about we aim for education?
Why do we not drum in to people (via MSC, police firearm safety campaigns, gun stores, COLFO, SSANZ, FOUNZ, NRA, PNZ etc etc) that it is a great idea to personally record the serial numbers of their firearms in the case that they get stolen?

Originally Posted by Beetroot

As I said, if the Police/Government decided they really wanted to ban semi-auto they could, if they put as much pressure as they do in Europe and the USA we don't have the NRA or enough people to oppose them.

If that were the case, how did we not end up with so many of the recommendations in the report? You think that was blind luck?

A lot of people put in a lot of work to make this happen. So many people took part of the democratic process that is used to further restrict and take away gun owners freedoms and thanks to that, we ended up with a "not as bad as it could be" result.

Originally Posted by Mauser308

The bit about suspension of licenses is actually a very practical solution to one of the major clusterf**ks in the current legislation. There is no option to prevent someone who is involved in domestic violence or found to have a medical issue (like depression), from having access to firearms without fully REVOKING the person's firearms licence. Currently, you either are fit and proper and can hold your licence, or you aren't. Currently no chance to take a bit of time and see how things play out in the event of an issue with depression that stems from the loss of a family member or a major natural disaster like the CHCH earthquakes...

The ability to SUSPEND a licence for a temporary amount of time while information is gathered etc is actually a major step forwards without forcing someone who's licence is revoked to undergo the costs of a courts challenge to have it returned. That's actually a major win both for owners and for the public at large, similar to what currently happens with driver's licences and a few other qualifications. Kudos for the recommendation...

mauser old chap ive had depression for 30+yrs and all it required was a letter from the GP to allow me to retain the license.I frankly couldnt give a hoot if the whole world knows -Im a nurse in mental health ,ive a mental illness so what.i said to the vetting officer "go read my health file if ya want ,but dont blame me if youre asleep at the end of the first page-he laughed like hell and said no worries.
actually was recently privvy to a case where an FAL is suspended infinitum at this point ,as opposed to revoked and all parties think its a commonsense solution.

now i know its election year but hell its highly unusual to see polis from both sides of the house back wee Paulas decision.of course the drooping lip of Mr Christopher Cahill was also visible but reality Christopher old bean is in this case your policemen are in the minority ,and frankly if the article I read is correct maybe some more training is needed in actioning present firearms law correctly not as assorted AOs think it should be.
i bet Greg O'connor had a quiet snigger at that own goal.
of course as alluded to on here it remains to be seen if polis will listen to the FAL sector in future,but judging by statements made most were pretty impressed with the FAL constituents feedback.a bloody big thank you to all you guys -mighty bloody effort.

Originally Posted by P38

@kotuku

@Rushy has beaten you to it mate, I believe he has a whole collection of these things now.

Attachment 70604

Cheers ( I think)
Pete

faaaark hes almost as handsome as me and has a bloody puku to match!......be jasus is that a donald trump cowlick pokinout under his hat too??now i is bloody jealous
PS paula will luv a rub of the green.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Please tell us how you know what is going to be in the arms amendment bill that hasn't been written yet.

Certainly. By reading and comprehending the ministers report that she tabled in the house, and the ministers press release. Both confirm the actions being taken in the new "Arms (Firearm Prohibition Orders and Firearms Licences) Amendment Bill" as a response to the select committee report. I have no idea what else will be in there, but given that police are drafting this bill, be prepared for even more nasty surprises.

Originally Posted by JWB

This is called "Appeasement", which means to try to conciliate or placate a potential aggressor by making concessions, at the sacrifice of ones principles.
Exponents of appeasement are known as "Nevilles" after its most famous practitioner.
History has shown appeasement to be an unsuccessful strategy in dealing with bullies.

Actually as most historians will agree "Nevilles" or a "chamberlain" is a misinterpretation of what happened, Great Britain was in no position to go to war with Germany in 1938, having let its armed forces run down, the following two years enabled Great Britain to rebuild its forces and prepare for war.

Originally Posted by kotuku

faaaark hes almost as handsome as me and has a bloody puku to match!......be jasus is that a donald trump cowlick pokinout under his hat too??now i is bloody jealous
PS paula will luv a rub of the green.

@kotuku, he might be almost as handsome as you, but he's twice your height.

Originally Posted by JWB

Certainly. By reading and comprehending the ministers report that she tabled in the house, and the ministers press release. Both confirm the actions being taken in the new "Arms (Firearm Prohibition Orders and Firearms Licences) Amendment Bill" as a response to the select committee report. I have no idea what else will be in there, but given that police are drafting this bill, be prepared for even more nasty surprises.

hello we have chris cahill posting under a bloody covert entity or mate are you a psychic.coppers drafting the bill-GO READ JUSTICE MALLONS JUDGEMENT AND COMMENTS TO THE COPPERS fFS.they do not draft this countries laws ,full bloody stop despite what you or jesus h christ may think!

Originally Posted by Jexla

Minimum security requirements don't require a law change, just common sense by gun owners and the vetting officers who check the security of gun owners.....

Abysmal A-Cat security is rampant, particularly among the older generation. In many ways you can't blame them as their flimsy MDF and similar wooden gun cabinets with gaps and a tiny lock passed muster ten years ago and prior. One senior gentleman said to me today, "I've had this gun safe for thirty years and it's done the job so I don't see why I should have to change it". His gun cabinet would take even the dumbest of thieves about twenty seconds to break open. Of course, he's never had the misfortune of being burgled.

Vetting personal need solid, straight forward standards that aren't open to interpretation for A-Cat security. The only way to achieve that is to make a law change that everyone understands. Counting on common sense is a lost cause because many people don't possess it.

Originally Posted by P38

@kotuku

@Rushy has beaten you to it mate, I believe he has a whole collection of these things now.

Attachment 70604

Cheers ( I think)
Pete

You bastard Pete. Have you been taking photos over my fence? Ha ha ha ha.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Abysmal A-Cat security is rampant, particularly among the older generation. In many ways you can't blame them as their flimsy MDF and similar wooden gun cabinets with gaps and a tiny lock passed muster ten years ago and prior. One senior gentleman said to me today, "I've had this gun safe for thirty years and it's done the job so I don't see why I should have to change it". His gun cabinet would take even the dumbest of thieves about twenty seconds to break open. Of course, he's never had the misfortune of being burgled.

Vetting personal need solid, straight forward standards that aren't open to interpretation for A-Cat security. The only way to achieve that is to make a law change that everyone understands. Counting on common sense is a lost cause because many people don't possess it.

agreed, must be wood of x thickness, with a padlock meeting x standard. No mdf or weetbix.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Abysmal A-Cat security is rampant, particularly among the older generation. In many ways you can't blame them as their flimsy MDF and similar wooden gun cabinets with gaps and a tiny lock passed muster ten years ago and prior. One senior gentleman said to me today, "I've had this gun safe for thirty years and it's done the job so I don't see why I should have to change it". His gun cabinet would take even the dumbest of thieves about twenty seconds to break open. Of course, he's never had the misfortune of being burgled.

Vetting personal need solid, straight forward standards that aren't open to interpretation for A-Cat security. The only way to achieve that is to make a law change that everyone understands. Counting on common sense is a lost cause because many people don't possess it.

Like I already said, we do not need more legislation. Legislation is not the answer to everything. Like you said yourself, the inspectors need easy to understand guidelines that make it clear that a shitty wooden box wouldn't be okay.

I will note that I have a friend who made a safe out of wood and some brick that goes on the wall behind a fire place and I have no doubt it would have been harder to get into than some A category safes sold commercially. (He replaced this as soon as he could afford to with an E category compliant safe even though he has no endorsements).

Therefore I don't think it's okay to just outright ban the use of wood itself.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Abysmal A-Cat security is rampant, particularly among the older generation. In many ways you can't blame them as their flimsy MDF and similar wooden gun cabinets with gaps and a tiny lock passed muster ten years ago and prior. One senior gentleman said to me today, "I've had this gun safe for thirty years and it's done the job so I don't see why I should have to change it". His gun cabinet would take even the dumbest of thieves about twenty seconds to break open. Of course, he's never had the misfortune of being burgled.

Vetting personal need solid, straight forward standards that aren't open to interpretation for A-Cat security. The only way to achieve that is to make a law change that everyone understands. Counting on common sense is a lost cause because many people don't possess it.

I think the current law is reasonably good in it's description as it says what the design intention is. That design intention is insufficient however for today's world.

Originally Posted by Jexla

Like I already said, we do not need more legislation. Legislation is not the answer to everything. Like you said yourself, the inspectors need easy to understand guidelines that make it clear that a shitty wooden box wouldn't be okay.

I will note that I have a friend who made a safe out of wood and some brick that goes on the wall behind a fire place and I have no doubt it would have been harder to get into than some A category safes sold commercially. (He replaced this as soon as he could afford to with an E category compliant safe even though he has no endorsements).

Therefore I don't think it's okay to just outright ban the use of wood itself.

Have to agree with that. You could have a safe/gun room built into the house with reinforced concrete on 3 sides and a wooden door but a "metal safes only" rule would make it fail, sure you could hack through the door with an axe but it wouldn't be any quicker or easier than opening many commercial A-cat safes with the same axe.

Maybe AOs need clearer guidelines because you do hear of some strange interpretations of what is acceptable or not, but every time I've had gun security examined the AO has been practical and interested in it being fit for purpose rather than just ticking off a checklist of 'features'.

Had a good chat with one of them about racks/chains etc, his attitude to that was that they're ok for occasional use but he doesn't like the idea of people using them for permanent long-term storage, especially with multiple guns. Mind you I knew someone who used a chain around a rafter to secure an old shotgun that only got used about once a year, it was probably safer than most safes because any would-be thief would have to climb into the ceiling cavity to find it!